I'm kinda thinking that Ubisoft went short on Revelations so that they could go long on Assassin's Creed III...shady stuff if true, but it does speak well for AC III. If not, and they've just legitimately run out of inspiration...well, let's just hope that's not the case.

I'm kinda thinking that Ubisoft went short on Revelations so that they could go long on Assassin's Creed III...shady stuff if true, but it does speak well for AC III. If not, and they've just legitimately run out of inspiration...well, let's just hope that's not the case.

The rumours have been that AC3 has been under development during Brotherhood and Revelations, so if that's the case it should be good.

I think the reason why Brotherhood turned out so well is because it seemed as though it was always part of the AC2 plan-- the story was just so tightly interwoven and the fact that they had modeled Rome but you barely visited it in AC2. My own theory is that at one point, AC2 and Brotherhood were one game, but they ended up splitting it in two. Revelations on the other hand really didn't have a strong story behind it and while it does fill some gaps, if you never played it, you probably won't be lost in the next game.

Revelations is not really that bad, but I prefer much more AC2 and Brotherhood.
The city was not as memorable, the characters were worse (except Sofia and Ezio, and well, they made me not hate altair in this one), and the stroy was meh. But the game is not bad per se, its has some good moments.
Ah yes, and the music is the best from the series.

The problem with Revelations, and what makes it tragic, is that it runs far better than any of the other games. More stable framerate, much better character models and animation, lip synching, lighting, etc. It's the best looking AC game by far. But it's wasted on a inconsequential story and a very limp quest.

Wait, I was on the fence with Revelations. Should I skip it and read summary instead? I enjoyed Brotherhood but I completed it just a few months ago and I'm only interested in Revelations because of that damned cliffhanger on brotherhood.

For people who enjoy the Assassin's Creed games, would you ever go back and replay them from the start? Not for achievements, just to go through them again because they were fun the first time?

Personally, I don't think I could ever go through any of these games again even though I've enjoyed my time with them. Which is making me question whether I ever liked this series to begin with. I mean a good game is a good game right? Like you would want to replay them if they were really that great?

For people who enjoy the Assassin's Creed games, would you ever go back and replay them from the start? Not for achievements, just to go through them again because they were fun the first time?

Personally, I don't think I could ever go through any of these games again even though I've enjoyed my time with them. Which is making me question whether I ever liked this series to begin with. I mean a good game is a good game right? Like you would want to replay them if they were really that great?

Me? I've played through each of them several times. Played and enjoyed AC1 the most.

Maybe major spoilers:Part of the Creed // Take the induction leap of faith
Jump they say // Reach the Animus memo
Enter the Animus // Enter the Animus simulation
Meet your maker // Finish memory five
Find all Pieces // Find all decipher fragments
Save yourself // Land on a block after falling more than 25 meters
Impress Warren Vidic // Complete the Animus testing sequence without failing
Cross Styx without dying // Make it across the river Styx without failing
+ 2 unknown achievements.

For people who enjoy the Assassin's Creed games, would you ever go back and replay them from the start? Not for achievements, just to go through them again because they were fun the first time?

Personally, I don't think I could ever go through any of these games again even though I've enjoyed my time with them. Which is making me question whether I ever liked this series to begin with. I mean a good game is a good game right? Like you would want to replay them if they were really that great?

I feel like I've played enough AC games in the same setting, with the same characters that I don't need to go back and replay any of them.

Maybe major spoilers:Part of the Creed // Take the induction leap of faith
Jump they say // Reach the Animus memo
Enter the Animus // Enter the Animus simulation
Meet your maker // Finish memory five
Find all Pieces // Find all decipher fragments
Save yourself // Land on a block after falling more than 25 meters
Impress Warren Vidic // Complete the Animus testing sequence without failing
Cross Styx without dying // Make it across the river Styx without failing
+ 2 unknown achievements.

yeah i think the actual disc already had some dialogue on it for the dlc
there was a youtube video of it but i cant find my post

Huh, not really getting all the negativity surrounding how frequent there are releases for the series. Would it really make people happier if they waited a extra year for no other reason than waiting a year?
Look I could understand if the "new" content was on the level of SvR, most sports, COD, but shit man, these are nothing but stellar games.
For me it is a wonderful series, and I'm happy that Ubisoft doesn't create some arbitrary break between the games simply to appease those silly notions of milking the series.
As long as Ubisoft continues to put out fantastic sequels, I will gladly buy them day one regardless of when the previous edition was released.

Edit: I also don't get how Rev sucked?
Imo it was on par with II and much better than Brohood. I think those who opted not to play Rev are truly missing out.

Huh, not really getting all the negativity surrounding how frequent there are releases for the series. Would it really make people happier if they waited a extra year for no other reason than waiting a year?
Look I could understand if the "new" content was on the level of SvR, most sports, COD, but shit man, these are nothing but stellar games.
For me it is a wonderful series, and I'm happy that Ubisoft doesn't create some arbitrary break between the games simply to appease those silly notions of milking the series.
As long as Ubisoft continues to put out fantastic sequels, I will gladly buy them day one regardless of when the previous edition was released.

This logic doesn't really apply if you feel they have been of declining quality.

I'm hyped for AC3 because it does not seem to be the same team who were on a yearly schedule with the last two games, but it really shouldn't be a controversial statement that I think Brotherhood and especially Revelations were stagnant, at best.

This logic doesn't really apply if you feel they have been of declining quality.

I'm hyped for AC3 because it does not seem to be the same team who were on a yearly schedule with the last two games, but it really shouldn't be a controversial statement that I think Brotherhood and especially Revelations were stagnant, at best.

Right, but then we'd just arguing opinion or preference; Which I guess is fine, as long as people understand the points are that of opinion.

I personally thought brotherhood was pale in comparison to II in terms of story, but even though Rev started out slow I found by the end of the game I had really enjoyed the story, especially the ending.

Now as I'm writing this I can concede that had Bro & Rev been one game it would have been, imo, the single greatest game I ever played. Though to suggest that both games in complete form from story, to locations, to game play should have been released as one product*, I feel is both unreasonable and unrealistic.

*Just a general statement. I'm not implying the member I quoted is suggesting that scenario.